The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-07-29

Eyer, John Gillespy.
HEMLooK-A. b. Hartman, Percival
Foulk-E. c. Bundy, substitute for
Percival Foulk, on account Of sick
ness in the family
JaoKsoN-H. J. Hurleman, Workman
Parker.
LoOusT-Peter Fetterman, Daniel Morris |
Jonathan Beaver, G. w. Yeager.
MADISON -Jno, j. Kramer, Rob't Manning. |
MAIN-B r. Yettcr, A. j. Campbell.
MIFFuN-E. Schweppenheiser, A. j.
Berninger, M. NJ. Hartzel.
MoNToUR-Elmcr Runyan, Jonas Girton. |
MT. PLEAsANT-R. G. Howell, Levi
Ikeler.
ORANGE L. Snyder, P. V. Gilespy.
PINE Samuel Stackhouse, VIM. Swartz.
RoARiNGoREEK --Euos Fetterman, WIN.
Zaner.
Soorr, E. Daniel Snyder, Eli Schneid-
man.
sCoTT, W--Fraucis Heck, John Wanich.
SUeARLoAF-Jac II. Fritz, j. NJ. Long,
z. L. Kile.
The list of votes cast for each candidate
was read. The table appears In another
column.
According to the vote cast the following
are elected members ST the Standing Com
mittee'
BRAvER-Levi Michael
BENroN-E. NJ. Laubach
BERWICK, E.-A d, Sccly.
BERWICK, Wv. A. Ross.
BLooMsBuRG, E.-U. II. Ent.
BLooMsBURG, W.-R. X, Little.
BRIARoRKEK-A. b. Croop,
CATAwIssA-E, NJ Tewksbury.
CESTRArIA-Jonas McDreariy.
CENTRE-A. d. Broder.
CoNYNGHAM, N.-John Paddon.
CoNYNGHAM, S.-Patrick Haley.
FIsHlNGcREEK-B. F. Edgar.
FRANKLN-J. F. Reeder.
GRRENwooD-C. NJ. Blaker.
HEMLooK-Samuel Girton.
JAoKsoN-Franklin Derr.
LoCUsT-Christian Small.
MADIsoN-Miles Smith.
MANI. w. Kelchner.
MIFFlLN--S. Snyder.
MoNToTR-A. o. Stonge.
MT. PLEAsANT-Amos Wanich.
ORANGE-John Hoffman.
PINE-J. X. Fowler.
RoARINGoRREK-D w. Rarig.
SooTr, W.-C. B. Ent.
SooTr, E.-T. w. Hartman.
SUGARLoAF-John Klinger.
Convention then adjourned for dinner,
to be re-convened at 2 o'clock.
AFTERNOON sRssloN.
Convention called to order by President,
as per adjournment.
Col. Freeze stated that at last Convention
committee was appointed to revise the
rules in reference to delegate elections, and
| that the committee had acted and were
ready to report On motion it was ordered
that the report be read before considering
any other business. The following is the
report:
REPORT on AMENDMENT OF RULES.
The undersigned, members of a commit
tee to whom the last annual County Con-
vention referred proposed change in the
rules of nomination, make the following
report:
The resolution referred to them proposes
| to abolish delegate conventions, and adop.
| a plan of plurality nominations based upon
| a popular vote for candidates; in other
words to substitute what has been called
the Crawford County plan" In place OF
the plan of instructed conventions estab-
lished by our existing rules. Briefly
stated, the proposed plan is, that the voters
shall vote directly for the candidates. that
return Judges Zone from each election dis
| trict, y shall meet as a return hoard to cast
up the votes, and the candidates highest
| in vote upon the returns shall become the
nominees of the party. The arguments in
| favor OF this plan are, that it is simple in
form and gives to the voters direct voice
| in the nominations. But, on the other
hand, to those vino have well-considered
the plan, and have observed its practical
working in places where il has been tried,
| it appears to be open to very serious OBJ
| iections. These objections the committee
will now proceed to slate;
In the first place, the plan gives minority
nominations for party support; oDliging
the majority to vote for candidates to
whom they are opposed, to refrain from
voting, or to support other candidates in
opposition to the laws Of their party. II
viii very commonly happen, W here there
are several candidates for nomination to
the same office, that the vote will be SC
much divided that the candidate highest
In vote on the returns will have less than
one-half of the whole vote cast. His vote
may be rs low as one-third OF the whole
or even less, and yet he will become the
nominee of the party. But such minority
nominations are unreasonable, and are en-
tirey opposed IN spirit, form and effect tC
Democratic principles, which support anc
sanction majority rule. Their inevitable
effect is, to produce dissatisfaction and tC
weaken the party that allows them to bt
made. Such was the case in Northumber
land county some years ago. This plar
was adopted there, by the Democracy, ant
nominations made under 1t for an import
ant election. 1t turned out that many o.
the nominations were made by minorltie'
upon the popular vote. This fact, in con
nection with the practical working OF th'
plan in other respects, produced genera
dissatisfaction; the whole ticket thus nom
mated was beaten at the polls, and the Re
publican minority of the county had sig
nal triumph. Instructed by tins experience
the Democrats of Northumberland count,
abolished the whole plan, and returned tC
the plan of delegate nomination, with SOM
improvements suggested by experience.
Upon this subject some persons hav
been entirely mislcd by the fact that, gen
orally, our election laws allow plurality
vote to elect to office. The question occur
to them; If mere plurality vote may elec
man 10 an office, why may not a pluI
alty vote nominate him to the same Office
The answer is, because the primary o
nominating election, and the legal election
, afterwards, stand upon very differen
, grounds. The former is to concentrat
the party vote and get lid of surplus cand
dates: the latter is TO test the relatiy
strength of political parties, and give tn
Office to the party that polls the most vote
for it's nominee. And in most cases tn
most votes, or plurality OF votes, AT tine J,
gal election, is also majority vote |
fact, il is to carry out and secure the prir
ciple of majority rules at legal elections
that party nominations are made. Will
] out them legal election would become